JUDGMENT - KOTWAL V.S., J.: - (Paras 1 to 3 of the Judgment not meant for reporting.)

4. A bare structure of few facts to resolve the controversy may be necessary as also sufficient. The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of the National Security Act for which purpose the Detaining Authority has formulated three grounds, which are reflected in the order. For that purpose reliance has been placed on certain documents which obviously would be part and parcel of the grounds of detention. The main contention of Shri Canteenwala, the learned Counsel, is to be effect that all these three items squarely and exclusively fall within the purview of the said Act if at all they can be said to formulate any valid ground for detention and as such by reason of bar provided under section 17 of the said Act same cannot be lifted out of the purview of the said Act and brought under the mischief of the provisions of the National Security Act. Shri Canteenwalla, the learned Counsel canvassed multifold contentions as the impugned order suffers from different vices such as (i) it is mala fide as it was passed after pre-determination and after proclamation by the Chief Secretary that certain persons should be rounded up and detained which included the name of the detenu and it is thereafter that the Detaining Authority felt that the detenu's activities which were already in existence prior thereto resulted in adversely affecting the maintenance of the public order, which realisation could synchronise only at that point of time, (ii) that the grounds obviously are stale; (iii) that even taken at the maximum those are not covered by the concept of the 'public order” and lastly (iv) that there is a specific bar under section 17 of the said Act for passing any order of detention under the National Security Act. It is unnecessary to have a deeper probe on the first three grounds as the fourth ground which is a formidable one should govern the fate of this interim proceeding also.

5. The first ground is even ex facie pertaining to the purported illegal activities restricted to liquor business. Thus it is alleged that the detenu has been indulging in transport of illicit liquor on large scale and he has threatened a person whom he suspected to be an informant about his bootlegging activities. The second ground is more or less on the same lines. Now it is apparent that when these two grounds are read properly those reflect a dominant part pertaining to the activities relating to illicit liquor and there is no escape from this inference. In both the grounds there is a reference to the threats given by the detenu to two persons and in fact one of them was also assaulted by the detenu and his associates. However, it is amply clarified through this ground as also through the statements of those persons whose names have not been obviously disclosed that they were made targets of the anger of the detenu only because they were suspected to have informed the police about the bootlegging activities like transport of liquor by the detenu. Consequently those acts have a direct nexus with the activities of the detenu as bootlegger and the anger against those informants flows only out of these activities so that the bootlegging transactions could continue smoothly. In fact both the witnesses have stated that the detenu is known as the prime person in illicit liquor business. A stray reference that one of the witnesses was asked to canvass in Assembly Elections for a particular candidate has really nothing to do with the order of detention. These two items, therefore, squarely fall under the mischief of relevant provisions of the Act as being predominantly concerned with the bootlegging activities, in the context of the alleged apprehension of adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. In so far as these two grounds are concerned the situation is not seriously disputed on behalf of the respondent.

6. However, the main controversy revolves around gr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document